Should the Us Dump Tris Pajamas on Third World Markets Essay Example

World countries is, in fact, not a moral dilemma at all.

The question itself actually confuses morally correct ways of doing business with current US regulations. We may agree that these regulations are well intended and admirable, but they are not morally required actions. P6: When the focus is taken off of US regulations and actually placed on moral norms that should be followed, we can see that when US MNC’s sell Tris pajamas in Third World countries, they are actually following the utilitarian principal of doing more good than harm.

Living conditions in these countries are far lower than those in the US. Many of these countries are in parts of the world with dry, hot climates, and the people live in shelters and homes that are extremely prone and vulnerable to fires. Although the pajamas carry a medical risk, the number of children who are spared severe burns will surely outweigh the number that my become ill from wearing the pajamas.

P7: Additionally, the MNC’s are not violating any other moral norms: they are not intentionally causing anyone harm, meaning that is not the goal of selling the pajamas in those parts of the world; we do not know from the case if they are contributing to the development of the countries, but we also cannot assume that they are not; again, we do not know if they are violating the rights of their employees, or violating cultural norms, but we also do not know that they are; and finally, we have every reason to believe that they are legally selling the pajamas in these countries, which would indicate that

they are not violating any local background institution laws. P8: Regardless of how one views the morality of selling the Tris pajamas in Third World countries, responsibility must also be placed on the local governments.

They are ultimately charged with regulating the happenings inside of their borders. It is not the responsibility of the MNC’s to determine what is and isn’t morally good for the people of another country. Premises from the Case: Made in the U. S. A. – Dumped in Brazil, Africa, Iraq… P1: For most parents, the threat of their child being caught in a fire is a nightmare. This is no different in Third World countries, where fires may be even more of a threat, due to the lower quality of construction, and the lack of infrastructure to deal with fires that have started. Pajamas that may help to save a child’s life is something that would be valued in a country with this type of situation.

P2: Even in the US, fire-retardant pajamas were valued enough that more than 200 million pairs were sold in a just a few years. P3: When the pajamas were banned in the US, it was done by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), not by any type of moral authority. The act was the result of a regulation, not a moral requirement. Our country’s regulations are not moral code, and are not applicable in Third World countries, there making the question of whether to sell the pajamas there a moral question, not a regulatory question. P4: For MNC’s selling the pajamas in Third World countries, the motivation is not just for profits,

it is also humanitarian in nature.

The pajamas may carry some edical risk, but in countries with high fire risk, any fire-retardant pajama is better than none at all. P5: Even though the US regulations do not hold any authority, moral or otherwise, in other countries, our Federal Government still notifies the importing country when there are products being exported that are banned in the US, such as the Tris pajamas. This then puts the onus on the importing country to decide whether they want the products. It is not a decision to be made by the US or the US MNC’s. P6: Denying Third World Countries access to these products effectively diminishes their national sovereignty, by making a choice for them, instead of letting them decide what is best for their people and state.

Personal Premises in favor of dumping Tris Pajamas on Third World Markets P1: The US is routinely criticized for forcing our culture and agenda on other countries. By not allowing the export of the Tris pajamas to Third World countries, we are effectively saying that we know what’s best for those countries, and that they are incapable those decisions for themselves. P2: We often take for granted that relatively high level of living that even our poorest US citizens are accustomed to. The Tris pajamas, although bearing a medical risk, would likely save more children in Third World countries than they would in the US, simply because the chances of being needed are higher, as a result of a lower living conditions and greater risk for fire.

P3: Although it seems as though there will surely be

cases of childhood cancer as a result of the Tris pajamas, it seems unlikely that the number of cases would be higher than the number of children who are saved the suffering of being severely burned. I believe the total potential for good outweighs the bad. No, the US should not dump Tris Pajamas on Third World Markets Premises from the Article: Are Ethical Values Ethical? ; Ethical Dilemmas for Multinational Enterprise: A Philosophical Overview P1: Although it can be argued that different people and different countries have different sets of moral rules (a relativist point of view), it stands to reason that some of those rules are, in fact, wrong.

The idea of sending Tris pajamas, a product known to cause cancer in children, to Third World countries, is one of those ideas that are morally wrong. P2: There is a standard to consider. That is, what is actually right, versus what people simply think is right. The latter will vary from person to person and place to place, while the former will always be true, no matter where or when. Protecting the health of children is one of those principals which is always right. P3: Although it is true that different countries have different, and relevant, cultures and ideals, it is also true that there are moral norms which can, and should, be applied to MNC’s. One such norm is that these MNC’s should do no direct harm.

However, in this case, the MNC’s are certainly doing harm, as there will be incidents of childhood cancer that are directly attributed to the chemicals in the Tris pajamas. P4: Additionally, the countries

that the Tris pajamas are being sold in are Third World, which means that the background institutions responsible for safe-guarding the citizens of those countries are woefully under-funded, under-staffed, and generally lack the authority to effectively protect the people. By engaging in the dumping of Tris pajamas in these countries, US MNC’s are taking advantage of the situation. What they should be doing is employing use of moral norms in their decisions to enter these markets.

Premises from the Case: Made in the U. S. A. – Dumped in Brazil, Africa, Iraq… P1: The Tris pajamas have been proven to have a direct, causal relationship to incidents of kidney cancer in children in the US. The US government thought this serious enough to ban the sale of the products in the US. Exporting them to Third World countries, simply because it is legal, is morally wrong. P2: The toxicity of the pajamas was so severe that they could not simply be thrown away, rather they must be burned, buried, or used as cloths in industrial settings. P3: Any arguments that the MNC’s were attempting to export the pajamas out of benevolent reasons can be dismissed.

It’s obvious that the motivation was profit-driven, especially when you consider the fact that they were able to obtain millions of pairs of the pajamas at discounted rates of 10-30 percent off wholesale price. Additionally, the motivation for the companies selling to the MNC’s was simply to limit financial loss. P4: The US government allowing the exportation of this type of hazardous product is also morally wrong. It usually carries motivations such as protecting the domestic companies who

face steep financial losses. P5: Although the US government will issue notifications when a product such as this is exported, the reality is that the notification system is virtually useless, due to the inability to get the word out effectively, and hesitation on the part of embassies to spread the word for fear of negatively affecting US exporting.

P6: Finally, even though the products are being shipped out of the US, it is possible that residual amounts of the hazardous chemicals can be found coming back into the US through importation. Exporting the problem does not remove it; it only transfers it, leaving open the possibility of it resurfacing. Personal Premises in favor of not dumping Tris Pajamas on Third World Markets P1: A child being diagnosed with cancer in the US is terrible in its own right. However, in a Third World country, a diagnosis of that nature is virtually a death sentence for any child, due to the lack of medical treatment available. Exporting a product that is known to have a causal relationship with cancer is morally wrong for that reason alone.